Assessment of EoI:231



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 231 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: buffer areas to 5 protected areas and within Key biodiversity area.

Evidence B:The EOI states that the communities selected for this project are all in or adjacent to KBA’s in Peru. These include two national parks and 3 communal reserves.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: located in general region which as indicated in irrecoverable carbon is high

Evidence B:The EOI does not identify the carbon density of the proposed area. The supporting spatial resource would appear to identify the area as having high carbon density.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: CONAP viene promoviendo la creación de Comités de Monitoreo, Control y Vigilancia del Bosques comunales…El ordenamiento jurídico peruano reconoce la potencialidad de organización de las comunidades indígenas para monitorear los bosques y cuidar sus territorios, por ello, la Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre N° 29763, establece en el artículo 127°

Evidence B:The project area are the territories of 15 indigenous communities in the Selva Central of Peru, which are managed through traditional governance systems. The EOI also details the previous work of CONAP and its member organizations CART, FECONAYA and URPIA to support community land use and development planning (Planes de Vida), develop forest monitoring capacities and committees, and establish Forest Monitoring Units within their organizations and the work with the Peruvian state to establish ECA’s.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: el territorio tiene un valor integral, el territorio lo es todo, su farmacia, mercado, su casa, no sólo es la superficie, subsuelo y aire, en ella se llevan a cabo las actividades culturales, productivas y sociales

Evidence B:The EOI describes the cultural importance of their territories to the indigenous people who live there, including using forest products for medicine, food, housing; and as a central element of their cosmovision. It briefly describes some cultural practices that promote conservation and their being rooted in a world view which values a balance between nature and culture.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: cumulative development pressure; global forest change. Road constructions seem to be a major threat in that it opens the area for unsustainable development and extraction activities

Evidence B:The EOI describes the primary threats as land use change/deforestation being driven by the expansion of small scale agriculture, including illicit crops such as coca, cattle ranching, illegal logging and the construction of roads. It states that more than 9,000 ha of forest have been lost in the past 8 years according to official government sources. It details in particular how the expansion of road construction is accelerating the threats.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: The policies and programs below offer enabling conditions but they are not the same as recognising rights to land: -Creación de la plataforma climática de pueblos indígenas para enfrentar la crisis climática según la Ley del Cambio Climático vigente -Creación de Unidades Técnica de Manejo forestal Comunitario y Comités de Vigilancia y control Forestal Comunitario según la Ley Forestal vigente

Evidence B:The legal framework in Peru has many progressive social and environmental elements, and there has been significant progress, as well as some set backs, over the past decade. The EOI describes three government initiatives that provide significant opportunities for greater support IPLC led conservation initiatives, including involving indigenous communities in forest monitoring, the Direct Conditional Transfer program which is a forest incentive program, and the Peru DGM project. It also describes the creation of an indigenous climate change platform and the new Forest Law as creating new opportunities for indigenous people to influence policy and play a direct, state supported role in forest conservation. Peruvian law recognized the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and forests, but has been slow to advance the titling process, about half of which remain unrecognized/titled.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: The following suggest there is government support: Creación de la plataforma climática de pueblos indígenas para enfrentar la crisis climática según la Ley del Cambio Climático vigente -Creación de Unidades Técnica de Manejo forestal Comunitario y Comités de Vigilancia y control Forestal Comunitario según la Ley Forestal vigente - the promotion of planes the vida supports IPLC led conservation

Evidence B:The Government of Peru has a number of initiatives that provide opportunities or support for IPLC led conservation, including a PES scheme mentioned above, and a newer effort to involve communities in forest monitoring. The role or supportiveness of Regional Governments in Ucayali, Loreto, Junín, Pasco, Huánuco and Cusco is not well described and has tended to vary depending on persons in office.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: 3 projects are listed.

Evidence B:The Peru DGM project has been well established for many years and has supported land titling in 6 of the 15 target communities, and the LOI describes training, equipping and capacity building efforts supported by UNREDD that have built a network of community forest monitors.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: 9 projects listed.

Evidence B:The EOI describes a number of important initiatives that can provide complementary support, including two Forest Investment Program projects (IDB and WB), two UNDP projects (Amazonia Resiliente and Proyectos Produtivos Sostenibles) and the GoP’s Direct Conditional Transfer program.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 20/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 26/30

Average Total Score: 23/30



Performance of EoI 231 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: the approach seems to be well thought. In addition to the two main goals below it also is seeking to influence policy to create a supportive environment 1. Comunidades indígenas con medio de vida resilientes incrementan sus ingresos por el aprovechamiento sostenible de la biodiversidad conservando sus bosques 2. Comunidades indígenas con sus respectivos comités de vigilancia y control de bosques garantizan la reducción de la deforestación y la biodiversidad asociada.

Evidence B:The EOI describes a project which is very well aligned to the objectives of the ICI, as it is designed to advance community planning and natural resource management within their territories, involve regional governments, increase sustainable business activity, reforest areas and consolidate community based forest monitoring and territorial control.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: The objectives and activities seem to be well thought out.

Evidence B:Overall the objectives and approach are very clear and compelling- the activities are well designed to achieve the proposed results. The one area where there could be more clarity is the creation of a CONAP owned GeoPortal, which is not described in enough detail to understand how it will facilitate investment in indigenous communities– but it seems like a great idea.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: The two long term objectives seem achievable 1. Comunidades indígenas con medio de vida resilientes incrementan sus ingresos por el aprovechamiento sostenible de la biodiversidad conservando sus bosques 2. Comunidades indígenas con sus respectivos comités de vigilancia y control de bosques garantizan la reducción de la deforestación y la biodiversidad asociada.

Evidence B:Most of the activities are well designed to achieve the desired results– investments in community land use planning and forest and territorial monitoring can have a major impact on stopping small scale farmers, ranchers and loggers from entering territories and cutting forest. Developing more sources of sustainable forest friendly income will reduce pressure on forests within communities and possibly led to greater respect/understanding by regional governments. How these activities will slow investments in the major driver of local deforestation– road construction, is less clear, but is perhaps related to the GeoPortal idea and achieving government support for public investment projects, which could change the calculus around continued road building or at least lead to greater investments in mitigating the negative impacts of road construction.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: They seem very much achievable.

Evidence B:The EOI does not propose a specific budget for the project, but certifies that the results are achievable within the given budget range. It lists a series of related projects for mostly smaller amounts.


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Nine projects are listed, they seem very relevant and managed by the lead organization

Evidence B:The project lists a number of ongoing complementary projects, including those mentioned above by the IDB, World Bank, UNDP and the GoP. It does not propose specific co-finance for the proposed project, but explains that communities can provide high levels of in-kind contributions which could amount to 60% of the total cost of the activities.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: from indications on table in question 12

Evidence B:The EOI identifies the project area as comprises 170,803 ha. It also notes that conservation of these areas will contribute to the protection of more than 1 million ha of KBA’s in the respective areas.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: The following are provided: • Número de prácticas ancestrales rescatados son aplicados para la mejora de la protección, mantenimiento y recuperación de la la diversidad biológica de los pueblos indígenas. • Número de emprendimientos de bionegocios líderadas por mujeres

Evidence B:The project proposes a number of activities directly designed to enhance sustainable livelihoods in the indigenous communities. CONAP proposes specific indicators for the number of new indigenous women led businesses established.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: its emphasis on planes the vida and the strategy of linking these to the different level of governments is key

Evidence B:The project proposes interventions in a number of areas that would produce long term benefits- strengthened local governance and territorial security, building capacity for sustainable business development strengthening relations with regional and national governments to garner greater investments in indigenous territories.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: It is aligned with NDC priorities; REDD captured in the Estrategia Nacional De Bosques y Cambio Climático (ENBCC); and the Plan de Acción Nacional sobre Diversidad Biológica

Evidence B:NA


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: There is a plan to develop a strategy; the project also pays attention to women entrepreneurs

Evidence B:NA


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: It is a well thought project that combines strengthening the internal capacities of IPs and creating a supporting environment.

Evidence B:The project proposes to make a a series of interventions that are both innovative (adapting new technologies for indigenous community forest monitoring, building a geoportal to guide investments) and potentially scalable for other communities in the Peruvian Amazon and the region as a whole.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 35/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 25/40

Average Total Score: 30/40



Performance of EoI 231 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: the organization and its collaborators are IPLC organizations

Evidence B:The project is proposed and to be implemented by CONAP and its member organizations FECONAYA, URPIA and CART.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: the organization seems to have a longstanding history of relevant work and leadership

Evidence B:CONAP is a national organization that has participated in many conservation related projects and activities in Peru.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: the organization seems to have a longstanding history of relevant work on the ground

Evidence B:The project would be implemented by CONAP and member organizations FECONAYA, URPIA and CART. CONAP is not affiliated with the largest national federation in Peru (AIDESEP), but has worked with them on the DGM project.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: Implemented projects are small in comparison to the IC projects and n La organización tiene un sistema para producir informes y estados financieros, pero éstos se producen esporádicamente, en respuesta a la demanda de los donantes. No se realizan auditorías externas.

Evidence B:The EOI describes the CONAP technical team, which includes both forest and agricultural engineers with extensive experience in the Peruvian Amazon. They all appear to have experience mostly with smaller projects. No experience with GEF projects.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 2/6

Evidence A: n La organización tiene un sistema para producir informes y estados financieros, pero éstos se producen esporádicamente, en respuesta a la demanda de los donantes. No se realizan auditorías externas.

Evidence B:CONAP has diversified funding, but does not currently have a project over $200k, nor do they regularly produce externally audited financial reports.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: NA/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: NA/2

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:CONAP does not have direct experience with with GEF safeguards, but has experience with USAID, GIZ and World Bank safeguards.



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 21/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 21/30

Average Total Score: 30/30



Performance of EoI 231 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)